The city council's first work session in the new court facility included a discussion to amend the city's accessory structure regulations.
The proposed amendment, which will have its second reading at the Monday, Dec. 18, regular meeting, includes changes for houses on curved roads, changed definitions for a house's front plane and updated definitions for main floors on split-level homes.
Council member Doug Fowler said that, with this amendment in play, he had a handful of additions in mind.
"Honestly, if the can of worms hadn't been reopened, I would probably let it ride," he said.
One idea, he said, was to remove the inclusion of the front door in defining a front plane. Denying construction of an accessory building in a front yard, as defined in the city's fence code, would simplify the decision making and prevent situations where someone has more building options because of the location of the front door.
"It's pretty clear," he said. "It takes out of play how the house is configured and how the house is laid out."
Currently, he said, two houses could be nearly identical but, with different door locations, one homeowner would have more options.
Additionally, he said, the current regulations allow for a maximum size based on the home's heated square feet. It could work better, he said, if the home's footprint is used instead. If the goal is proportional structures, he said, there's no reason not to count the garage.
Additionally, he said, there's a current overall maximum size of 720 square feet, even if a larger structure could be built based on the primary structure's size. He'd like to keep that maximum, he said, but remove the requirement for a proportional size if the structure is built on an adjacent lot, meaning someone with a smaller house could build a larger structure, so long as it is on an adjacent lot.
Height was another issue, he said. Currently, an accessory building may not be taller than the primary structure, regardless of what ground it is built on. A shorter building on a hill that would put its roof higher than the primary building, he said, would not be permitted.
Fowler said he'd like to revise the ordinance to only limit the accessory building's height and remove topography from the equation.
"Those are just four things I think that we could talk about," he said. "We are a recreational community and I think we should be giving them the benefit of the doubt."
Council member Linda Lloyd said she wasn't sure if this would be beneficial. An accessory structure, she said, is subordinate to the primary structure and having the accessory structure sitting higher could create problems with that perception.
"That would visually become the primary visual structure and not be subordinate," Lloyd said. "That would be a concern for me."
Council member Frank Anderson said that, historically, the size has been the biggest issue and the primary thing residents complain about. Structures ending up in the front yard, he said, is another problem the ordinance was designed to address, and he was concerned that using the current front-yard regulations could allow an accessory structure to be placed closer to the road.
"There is a fine line; I'm not sure what the line is," he said.
Staff attorney Jason Kelley said that the council still has a third reading to get to and, with the amount of work that will need to go into drafting these proposed amendments to the proposed amendments, it may be best to hold onto them until the third reading.
"We're talking about some potentially complex amendments," he said. "Your head swims when you start thinking about this too much."
The council also talked about revisions to the city's drug-free workplace policy to address medical marijuana, revisions to the city's employee handbook, funding the animal shelter and maintaining traffic signals.
General News on 12/13/2017